search for: prejudici

...nknown" host triple is > undesirable, I propose that we set the default test triple to be > "x86_64-pc-linux-gnu", and require deviations to be specified. Here, I don't agree. I don't see why one platform should be the default over another. A similar concept, but less prejudicial is: If the tests require platform-specific features, platform-specific tests should be added. *Only* those added will be assumed tested (for the sakes of validation). Other architectures can add similar tests on their own triples, if necessary / desired. In a nutshell, "unknown" defaul...

...fairs among the tests that do have triples specified (that they are "random" in the sense that they're usually whatever architecture the developer is working on at the time - so we have lots of linux ones, lots of darwin ones, and a smattering of ARM) > A similar concept, but less prejudicial is: If the tests require > platform-specific features, platform-specific tests should be added. > *Only* those added will be assumed tested (for the sakes of > validation). Other architectures can add similar tests on their own > triples, if necessary / desired. Yes, that's the i...

Hi, I haven't found in R a possibility to draw a boxplot with a diamond shape (means and CI). Does anyone know how to plot it ? thanks,

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:42 AM C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:55 AM C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Chandler - I do not want to derail, hijack or change the topic of this > >>

...ntly eat into evenings, nights, weekends and (so-called) holidays. Anything which increases the sysadmin workload - e.g. suddenly faced with a vertical learning curve just to do the tasks they did yesterday, or a GUI which leaves them unable to find anything on their screens - is a major issue, and prejudicial not only to the sysadmin's own work, but also to that of the users to whom he/she is responsible. And when you're talking about systems used by hundreds and thousands of users, that's a big problem.

Once upon a time, Peter Duffy <peter at pwduffy.org.uk> said: > The thing which always gets me about systemd is not the thing itself, > but the way it was rolled out. When I first installed Red Hat 7, if a > window had appeared telling me about systemd and asking me if I wanted > to use it, or stick with the old init framework, I'd have opted for the > latter (as I was

...gs, nights, weekends and > (so-called) holidays. Anything which increases the sysadmin workload - > e.g. suddenly faced with a vertical learning curve just to do the tasks > they did yesterday, or a GUI which leaves them unable to find anything > on their screens - is a major issue, and prejudicial not only to the > sysadmin's own work, but also to that of the users to whom he/she is > responsible. And when you're talking about systems used by hundreds and > thousands of users, that's a big problem. So don't use it then .. EL6 has support until 30 Nov 2020. Syste...

Re-reading the thread, it looks like there is a difference of opinion what "an active community behind the target" means: an active community of LLVM-target-maintainers, and/or an active community of end-users. I'd think the immediate practical concern is that there is an active community of LLVM-target-maintainers, so that the maintenance burden does not fall unduly on the rest of

Hi all, We consistently see test failures arising because by default many of our tests run in a mode where the tool (clang or llc) pick host-dependent behavior. This makes it easy for developers to write tests that pass on their system, but fail for other developers. There is some utility in this behavior, as it gives us (unintended) testing coverage of some things, but overall I think it is a

On Mar 28, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: Oscar, just FYI, your wording is very strong, and that is often not the most productive way to make your point. That said, to address some of the things you've raised in a couple of threads: >> If you think these are irrelevant points then you need to state why >> and should back it up with less

Greetings all, First off, thanks to everyone who contributed to the initial discussion thread. Judging by the responses from that thread, there seems to pretty broad interest in pursuing this. There also seem to be a few concerns. =] I'm including an updated draft based on the feedback, and I'll also try to break down the major points I've seen of discussion. Sorry for the long email,

...will not interact with that community because they find that community's acceptance of offensive behavior unacceptable. I certainly don't want to see that happen here. > Codes of conduct, as they come, are an expression of some people, > mostly from the US, in response to an extreme prejudicial behaviour, > and is related to the recent political climate in that country, more > than anything else. > > Communities grow up every year in many places, they get to be decent > and caring (like ours, like Fosdem) without a code of conduct. That > very reason is a fact against...

Hi Eric, > From my perspective Win32 is the windows ABI and mingw and cygwin are their own ABIs No. They are using Windows Platform ABI for almost everything (e.g. calling API, C runtime, etc.). At least mingw does. The differences are exactly in unspecified area (e.g. passing / returning structs by value). The only difference is C++, where mingw / cygwin follows Itanium ABI and MSVC - its

...t;p_addr + i * PAGE_SIZE); vm_page_unwire(m, 0); vm_page_free(m); } +#if defined(I386_CPU) + if (cpu_class <= CPUCLASS_386) + invltlb(); +#endif /* * If the process got swapped out some of its UPAGES might have gotten @@ -910,23 +958,23 @@ * Allow the UPAGES for a process to be prejudicially paged out. */ void -pmap_swapout_proc(struct proc *p) +pmap_swapout_proc(p) + struct proc *p; { int i; vm_object_t upobj; vm_page_t m; upobj = p->p_upages_obj; - pmap_qremove((vm_offset_t) p->p_addr, UPAGES); - /* * let the upages be paged */ - for(i = 0; i < UPAG...

I intend to release a project I wrote with Rails. What is the right licensing scheme for a web application (content managing system) which could grow with plugins and add-ons ? Personally, I would prefer the GPL but does that mean any add-on to the CMS (like task management) will have to be GPL ? If some people contribute to the code could it still be double-licenced so that the people who